When the New York Convention was drafted, one of its fundamental aims was to provide for a uniform system of enforcement of arbitral awards. One noteworthy feature of the New York Convention is that it has done away with the double exequatur requirement that was an element of the Geneva Convention for the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1927. However when an award is enforced, both the courts at the seat and those at the place of enforcement still have distinct roles to play. When an award is challenged, the proper forum to do so is at the court at the seat. These decisions should be given comity by foreign courts. However, this does not always hold true, largely due to subtle differences in laws in various jurisdictions, namely what is considered against public policy. This article will look at whether there is a diminished importance of courts at the seat of an arbitration and the role of courts at the seat in the enforcement of awards.